From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Renaming conversion procs (was Re: Error on compile for Windows) |
Date: | 2009-11-02 18:41:58 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c0911021041u12b355b9o9d8c8b5f374c0eb5@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 18:54, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com> writes:
>> I've also seen it with winzip. Again, ISTR that the exact limits were
>> obscure but that restricting the path to less than 100 characters
>> avoided any problems.
>
> Hmm. It strikes me that the names seen by tar include "postgresql-x.y.z/".
> The only file paths that approach 100 characters on that basis as of
> 8.4.1 are
>
> postgresql-8.4.1/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/utf8_and_shift_jis_2004/utf8_and_shift_jis_2004.c
> postgresql-8.4.1/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/utf8_and_euc_jis_2004/utf8_and_euc_jis_2004.c
> postgresql-8.4.1/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/euc_jis_2004_and_shift_jis_2004/euc_jis_2004_and_shift_jis_2004.c
>
> The first and third of these have in fact been reported as trouble
> spots. AFAIR the second has not, but it's exactly 100 characters, which
> would explain why it works ... or will work till we get to two digits in
> the minor release number, anyway :-(. So that seems to validate your
> theory.
>
> If we want to set an upper limit of 100 characters, and allow for
> release numbers up to 99.99.99, then the maximum length for
> conversion_procs file names would be 19 characters (plus .c), and the
> same for their directories. So we could rename these to, say,
> utf8_and_sjis2004
> utf8_and_euc2004
> euc2004_sjis2004
> This would be an easy change to make going forward (other than loss of
> CVS history, but I'm not terribly worried about that for these files).
> We could not so easily back-patch it because the .so filenames are
> already embedded in installations' pg_proc tables. Personally I'd
> be satisfied if it's fixed for 8.5 and beyond --- comments?
Seems like this would be a major PITA for packagers and end-user. And
it would be an issue for the vast majority of our users - who use
binary packages on whatever platform they're on. And that only to help
those that have a broken (or severely limited) tar version, *and* try
to build from source.
Thus, +1 for doing this for 8.5 and beyond only.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John DeSoi | 2009-11-02 19:01:11 | Re: Cancelling Requests Frontend/Backend Protocol TCP/IP |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-02 17:54:32 | Renaming conversion procs (was Re: Error on compile for Windows) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-11-02 19:05:23 | Re: Some notes about Param handling with "Oracle style" plpgsql variables |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-11-02 18:28:09 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |